• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Commonly abused logical Fallacies..

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Ad Hominem-Today, too many people use this as the same thing as a personal insult...this is indeed the most misunderstood and the most misapplied logical fallacy.

No no... here is what an ad hominem is: an error in reasoning, nothing more nothing less. It is basically like saying that your opponent is wrong not because there is something wrong with his reason, but just because he is an idiot.

Here is a more subtle and more common-place version of ad hominem logical fallacy.

John's argument about medicine is wrong because he got a 2.0 in his Medical school.



Next most commonly abused fallacy is the Straw Man fallacy...

I take for it to be common courtesy that when you arguing... you make your opponent's case as strong as possible first... and maybe later.. if you think he is wrong... you attack his argument then...

A straw man fallacy occurs when we misrepresent the opponent's case and purposefully make it weak just so we can have the pleasure of tearing him up..

Here is a good example of this...

I say for example, in order for you to be in time, you must have both mass and be subjected to light, as supported by Einstein's relativity. So if the mind survives the death of body, it will be outside of time.

And my opponent says, thats religious non-sense, mind surviving the death of body!?

Basically there... the claim that is getting attacked is one that I did not make, its a distortion of what I seem to have had in mind.


And finally, circular reasoning, the most common error on this site.

Circular reasoning is basically having your conclusion the same as your premises.

A typical example of this would be saying that you're right, but not supporting it with logical argument.


Here is an example of a valid argument..

All men are mortal
I am a man
I am mortal


Circular reasoning---conclusion comes ahead of the premises...

I am mortal...

Then my opponent asks me to justify this... and again... I say I am mortal and period...
 

darlets

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
357
"You can't put a cost on human life". Really? What planet do people who say this live on. This bugs me alot, as if it's the ultimate fall back position and will win any argument.

Governments put a costs on human life all the time. It's part of their job.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
Somone using the defnintion of a word as part of an argument. Two recent examples I've seen:

Someone using the fact that "orc" usually represents evil creatures to say that Warcraft orcs must be evil. (The person didn actually say this at one point, that because "orc" traditionally means evil, thatt no matter what someone did, that definition meant that any future ideas of "orc would be evil.)

This quote from INTPcentral:
Liberals can be libertarian. Liberals can also be authoritarian. Liberalism refers to social control in government. It says nothing about economic control. So by being a liberal who is anti-libertarian, you put yourself into the authoritarian camp. That is, assuming you have correctly identified yourself.


The fallaciy, of course, is that when people are arguing a point using words, they aren't arguing the words themselves, they are using words to represent ideas, and arguing the ideas, and definitions may be slightly different.

Related to this is how people often use slightly different definitions to change around emotional meanings of words to try and score points in arguments.
 

logan235711

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
166
MBTI Type
INTJ
lol are you joking here? :p cause every example is the exact example it is trying to claim itself. If so, I must commend you, that must have taken a bit of time : )
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
lol are you joking here? :p cause every example is the exact example it is trying to claim itself. If so, I must commend you, that must have taken a bit of time : )

I appreciate your INTJ debasement of reason in favor of baseless intuitive leaps.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I specifically came up with examples to demonstrate each fallacy...
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
I can also bring up examples to show why my "fallacy" is in fact a fallacy (And why it is a bad method for arguing in terms of correctness and finding new information.)
 

logan235711

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
166
MBTI Type
INTJ
Related to this is how people often use slightly different definitions to change around emotional meanings of words to try and score points in arguments.
hehe yep yep, I know what you mean! I think that is what is considered the difference between debate and argument, is that debate is more about the winning or losing of a conversation by means that focus on things other than purely the premises and the conclusion : ) So an 'appeal to emotion' or psychological use of how conversation structure can influence the audience are good example. Basically, anything where the audience is taken into account in possible addition to the actual premises and conclusion is a debate--while arguments do not attempt at any ulterior audience influence : )

I specifically came up with examples to demonstrate each fallacy...
lol ok, then I suppose to bring up some important ideas, is that first of all, these are not 'logical fallacies,' Logic is usually considered the science 'of' correct reasoning so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Second, a fallacy in logic in entirely different than the type of fallacy you are using : ) (I'll let my latter text expound upon this so hopefully you can derive what I mean through the reading : )

So what is it that you are doing if not logical fallacies then? These are actually attempts at showing useful pitfalls in reasoning to avoid when arguing. They are not necessarily fallacies as one can, for example, accidentally still solve or answer with a solution that does not lead to a fallacious outcome : ) However, the chance that one might commit one of these ideas many might say, 'usually' leads to an absence of a good argument on ones part. But alas! let us jump to the examples--the yummy stuff! :D

1. Ad-Hominem: again, this, or any of the preceding examples, are not 'logical fallacies' shame on you! ;p Ad-Hominem is actually, more precisely, when one transforms the argument into a debate on one's behalf. The appeal to emotions by attacking the person who has presented the argument means that the person is trying to present reasons by no longer looking at the premises presented, but who presented the premises. However! as mentioned above, this doesn't always lead to a bad argument on one's behalf! If, for example, the person making the premises has come to false premises by means that were related to the person in a manner (psychological, historical, etc.) then this might actually be a useful method in argument. However, usually, this is nothing more than an attempt to persuade people not by directing attention primarily to the premises, but to the person--in such a case, where no premises are derived from the person that directly correlate (usually) to the premises already at hand : ) Lastly, this is why it is considered bad reasoning, because one is attempting to reason based on the person, not the premises at hand : )

2. lol :D this was the funniest one for me, because about in the attempt to explain the straw hat, you were using a straw hat, mainly because you slightly mis-used and mis-understood how it was used (on the subtler points tho! you got the main gist! ^_^), so you were arguing something that wasn't presented--which is actually what a straw hat is XD :banana:

lol anyways, Straw Hat is usually when one refutes the premises of an arguments towards a new conclusion by arguing a close relative to the original premises that usually occurs through mis-representation : ) Don't confuse this with a 'red herring!' which tends to be rather when someone misrepresents the conclusion as support for further false conclusions, or, even for the very premises that one was trying to reach in order to maintain a sound argument in the end : ) lol a couple things to point out, is that a) straw hat, nor any potential fallacy in reasoning, does not have to be purposeful, accidents can occur, and to be frank, that is mostly what they are, accidents that slipped by people when they were arguing :) b) the example is actually not accurate, as the ending statement is in the form of If A, then B--and although disproving A does not disprove B, it does eliminate A as a possible example which was brought up as being related to the argument, thus is valid as an indirect attack on the main argument : ) A more correct example would be if someone said If A, then B, and rather than trying to refute A, someone refuted a variation of A (and sometimes a variation of B) because they misunderstood what you were arguing or what you meant : )

Just goes to show, that even within these examples, it can be tricky!! :)

3. Alright, this last one is actually called 'begging the question' leet speak for you philosopher junkies :p (lol not really, but it's generally not as often refered to as 'circular reasoning' by the logical/philosophical community ><) ANNDDD!!! more precisely, this is when the very premises which your argument rests on is the conclusion which one is trying to reach. wowzers!!! :eek:

toodles! :alttongue:
 

Haight

Doesn't Read Your Posts
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
6,232
MBTI Type
INTj
No no... here is what an ad hominem is: an error in reasoning, nothing more nothing less. It is basically like saying that your opponent is wrong not because there is something wrong with his reason, but just because he is an idiot.
Look, dumb ass, you are totally wrong on this one.

Ad hominems can be used to manipulate the emotions of ones opponent in order to illicit an illconcieved response. Therefore, ad hominems are logical fallacies, however, they are not necessarily unreasonable.











*
This message should in no way be viewed as solicitation for such behavior on this website. Failure to comply to rules regarding ad hominem attacks will be met with severe punishment. The author of this post does not condone ad hominem arguments and refrains from such behavior - mostly - in order to create a professional example for the said website. This has been a public service announcement.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
hehe yep yep, I know what you mean! I think that is what is considered the difference between debate and argument, is that debate is more about the winning or losing of a conversation by means that focus on things other than purely the premises and the conclusion : ) So an 'appeal to emotion' or psychological use of how conversation structure can influence the audience are good example. Basically, anything where the audience is taken into account in possible addition to the actual premises and conclusion is a debate--while arguments do not attempt at any ulterior audience influence : )


lol ok, then I suppose to bring up some important ideas, is that first of all, these are not 'logical fallacies,' Logic is usually considered the science 'of' correct reasoning so that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Second, a fallacy in logic in entirely different than the type of fallacy you are using : ) (I'll let my latter text expound upon this so hopefully you can derive what I mean through the reading : )

So what is it that you are doing if not logical fallacies then? These are actually attempts at showing useful pitfalls in reasoning to avoid when arguing. They are not necessarily fallacies as one can, for example, accidentally still solve or answer with a solution that does not lead to a fallacious outcome : ) However, the chance that one might commit one of these ideas many might say, 'usually' leads to an absence of a good argument on ones part. But alas! let us jump to the examples--the yummy stuff! :D

1. Ad-Hominem: again, this, or any of the preceding examples, are not 'logical fallacies' shame on you! ;p Ad-Hominem is actually, more precisely, when one transforms the argument into a debate on one's behalf. The appeal to emotions by attacking the person who has presented the argument means that the person is trying to present reasons by no longer looking at the premises presented, but who presented the premises. However! as mentioned above, this doesn't always lead to a bad argument on one's behalf! If, for example, the person making the premises has come to false premises by means that were related to the person in a manner (psychological, historical, etc.) then this might actually be a useful method in argument. However, usually, this is nothing more than an attempt to persuade people not by directing attention primarily to the premises, but to the person--in such a case, where no premises are derived from the person that directly correlate (usually) to the premises already at hand : ) Lastly, this is why it is considered bad reasoning, because one is attempting to reason based on the person, not the premises at hand : )

2. lol :D this was the funniest one for me, because about in the attempt to explain the straw hat, you were using a straw hat, mainly because you slightly mis-used and mis-understood how it was used (on the subtler points tho! you got the main gist! ^_^), so you were arguing something that wasn't presented--which is actually what a straw hat is XD :banana:

lol anyways, Straw Hat is usually when one refutes the premises of an arguments towards a new conclusion by arguing a close relative to the original premises that usually occurs through mis-representation : ) Don't confuse this with a 'red herring!' which tends to be rather when someone misrepresents the conclusion as support for further false conclusions, or, even for the very premises that one was trying to reach in order to maintain a sound argument in the end : ) lol a couple things to point out, is that a) straw hat, nor any potential fallacy in reasoning, does not have to be purposeful, accidents can occur, and to be frank, that is mostly what they are, accidents that slipped by people when they were arguing :) b) the example is actually not accurate, as the ending statement is in the form of If A, then B--and although disproving A does not disprove B, it does eliminate A as a possible example which was brought up as being related to the argument, thus is valid as an indirect attack on the main argument : ) A more correct example would be if someone said If A, then B, and rather than trying to refute A, someone refuted a variation of A (and sometimes a variation of B) because they misunderstood what you were arguing or what you meant : )

Just goes to show, that even within these examples, it can be tricky!! :)

3. Alright, this last one is actually called 'begging the question' leet speak for you philosopher junkies :p (lol not really, but it's generally not as often refered to as 'circular reasoning' by the logical/philosophical community ><) ANNDDD!!! more precisely, this is when the very premises which your argument rests on is the conclusion which one is trying to reach. wowzers!!! :eek:

toodles! :alttongue:


We are seemingly using the same words to referr to different ideas.

All I am saying is that when you argue, you should attack ideas, and show why ideas are inadequate and not why the person is not adequate. Essentially arguments are about ideas and not their authors.

If you attack the author and supposedly made him seem inadequate and say that you 'won' the argument, because in order to do that you have to tear down the idea, you only took care of the author, but not the idea itself.


As for Haight, I am not concerned with the 'emotional entailment' of ad hominem, all I am saying is that 'ad hominem logical fallacy', this is what it is conventionally labelled as attacks not the idea, but the author, period. I get that ad hominem is not always unreasonable, for example, a clevel politician may purposefully attack his opponent to discredit his ideas (and elicit an emotional response to his own end), but as a philosophical statement, his, would be errant. And this is why its appropriate to refer to ad hominem as a logical fallacy, because it is an error in reasoning.(Once more it is an error in reasoning because it asserts that an idea should be rejected without providing an adequate reasoning for why an idea should be rejected, 'proving' that the author of this particular idea is a fool is not an adequate reason for such an idea to be rejected as this has nothing to do with the idea in itself.) And also here is something else to 'ad hominem' to show that it is more than just something that evokes emotions rather than thoughts. 'Look dumbass you're totally wrong', there you havent commited the ad hominem. You can easily evoke an emotional reaction just by saying this, any personal insult will do for that. Yet an ad hominem would be 'Look you're totally wrong because you're a dumbass(I am not even going to read what you said because you're a dumbass I'll assume you're wrong in advance, thats basically what ad hominem is, saying your opponent is wrong not because you've thought about his argument and found his error, but because you know that he is a dumbass and this automatically entails him being wrong.)'.. So the 'because' is the part missing in your statement to qualify it as an ad hominem, as it stands, it would just be a raw personal insult without a logical error, because it has never engaged the province of logic in the first place, it stayed within the province of the 'personal/emotional', ad hominem happens when an entity that belongs in the 'personal/emotional' attempts to envade the province of hard logic.

There are many ways to perceive 'the straw man fallacy', again logan, I appreciate your INTJ insistence that there is only one way, and this of course is your way.

The most broad notion of straw man fallacy I can come up with is purposefully misrepresenting your opponent to make his argument appear as weak as possible.

And circular reasoning, we seem to be on the same page, circular reasoning is better thought of as an absence of argument, rather than an errant an argument.

Basically if I say God exists, and you ask why, and I just say God exists again. Basically then I'd be claiming that my statement is correct without giving an argument for it.

I dont think we need to get hung up on the notion of a 'logical fallacy', a fallacy is basically an error in reasoning, regardless of how far-fetched it may be and on that note we are probably on the same page.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
Yes. It seems that the OP identify some fallacious arguments on this forum. But logan235711 seems suspicious that the sophist might commit fallacy intentionally to influence public. But, I think fallacy can also be committed unintentionally. I identify other type of fallacies :denying the antecedent, affirming the consequence, non sequitur, appealing to authority, and ad hominem, in this forum. It has become my concern to criticize the sophist. But my problem is that should I criticize him/her on the thread or may be on another? Or May be I shouldn't have overthought it.
Generally, The sophist that commit ad hominem should realize that even though they spot some deficiency in the person, that doesn't make his/her position rebutted.
This type of arguments I frequently spot sounds fallacious:
Like Isabel Briggs Myers doesn't hold any degree of formal educational background in psychology, so MBTI is false.
A denying the antecedent example common in this forum will be accepting yourself as the type, but rejecting the Jungian psychological functions, since after all, the type is formed by combination of the cognitive functions. How could a type even exist in the first place, if a cognitive functions didn't?. I see some of the forum member do not mention or informed their type themselves. It may be the correct response for someone who reject the cognitive functions: not to type themselves as the type.
 

Yuurei

Noncompliant
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
4,509
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
I find the idea that the trite bullshit people argue over ( ie everything under the sun) matters at all is the greatest fallacy.

Is just..it doesn't. It really, really doesn't.

60% of things people bicker about is personal opinion or preference so trying to argue is just completely self unaware and childish.

Another...oooh 15% is arguing facts; equally pointless. If someone does not believe a fact it's because the don't want to and you’re just banging your head against a brick wall.

The rest is arguing about, well, no one even knows. They just argue because it's the only form of communication they know.
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
Everybody knows that X is true.
Therefore, X is true.

Alleged Certainty

Trump uses that stupidity on a regular basis.
 
Top